Andrew Garfield wants Spiderman to explore his bi-sexuality

Personally I'd be totally against this. Not for any homophobic reasons, but simply for the tradition of the character. Spider-Man isn't gay, MJ is not a guy, and there's no reason to mess with the storyline in such a major way.
 
Im not even going to merit the following with the posters name, because I'm taking it out of their context and that would be a trite excersise. Fuckit, its Wicked Dragon or something, but there's no beef with them.

No it wouldn't. If the script and action are good it will be even better. This is a spider-man movie, not a topic of the decade movie. CALM DOWN WICKED APPLESAUCE, I'm not ripping on you (apart from purposefully getting your name wrong that is). If he's gay, let him get on with it. About 80% of the time i'm not picking up a spider-man comic to see how his relationship with MJ is working out (though it can be oh-so-juicy!) Granted, I'll be a little taken aback if he comes out in the next issue, (but he's a ghost at the minute, so one thing at a time fellas, eh?) but it's irrelevant, and mostly just a plot piece, as all things are in comics Don't believe me? Just check your fridge. Spider-Man is only in love with MJ to complicate things. That 80% for comics is waaaay higher than for movies. I wan't to watch CGI fight CGI. Good luck to anyone who makes a spider-man movie without much attention payed to fighting a villian.
Seperate fucking point time: The gay, lesbian, bisexual, robot, wizard community is often under-represented in the mainstream market... Ok, maybe not the robots and wizards... But I mark a lot of that down as the troubles of enduring characters that were created around 50 years ago. Homosexuality wasn't all that hot back then; and you better believe if your character was black his superhero name was going to be "Black Somethinger". That problem doesnt really exist these days, many characters now are gay, religious, celiac and black. The good thing is, nobody cares. The bad thing is, nobody cares. There is, as of yet, no big budget gay superhero film, because nobody is picking up young avengers, or the runaways, or Bat-Girl enough to warrant it. One of them will kick off though. Eventually. But there are a lot of comics right now. Alot more than when spiderman showed up. Spider-man has the misfortune of being straight for the last 50 years, so they likely won't change it now. But if they did it would be a moot point.


I'd probably be pissed if Wicked Applesauce didn't have a nice ring to it.

Anyway I'm not, after reading your post I honestly agree with you more than I don't. The only real reason I would be for turning MJ into a guy is because of the mainstream representation. Like you said, there's not a lot of it. And whenever there is a gay main character it's usually in a movie that centers around how the main character is gay and the problems they face with being gay. I'm honestly tired of that plot line and just want a movie where the protagonist happens to be gay and he/she are kicking ass and trying to solve the actual problems, like any protagonist. You've proved a point that Spider Man is obviously not the right kind of movie for that to happen given it's continuity and history. So I relent and agree with that argument.

I don't see the point in getting offended on an internet forum, especially when you seem to not have meant any real offense.
 
I'd probably be pissed if Wicked Applesauce didn't have a nice ring to it.

Anyway I'm not, after reading your post I honestly agree with you more than I don't. The only real reason I would be for turning MJ into a guy is because of the mainstream representation. Like you said, there's not a lot of it. And whenever there is a gay main character it's usually in a movie that centers around how the main character is gay and the problems they face with being gay. I'm honestly tired of that plot line and just want a movie where the protagonist happens to be gay and he/she are kicking ass and trying to solve the actual problems, like any protagonist. You've proved a point that Spider Man is obviously not the right kind of movie for that to happen given it's continuity and history. So I relent and agree with that argument.

I don't see the point in getting offended on an internet forum, especially when you seem to not have meant any real offense.

Oh jeez, I wasn't even aiming at you, beyond the obvious for comedic effect. I'm not here for making others feel small. I wasnt even going to name you because I knew I was taking your statement out of its true context and using it for my own agenda. Cheers for being cool none the less.

I'm in agreeance with you too, there's representation and there's exploitation, and most don't even try to thread the line. I say bring on the black homosexual MJ (especially if he does a better job than Kirsten Dunst), but lets not have that the focus of a movie it shouldn't be the focus of.
 
I wasn't aware Spider-Man was a bisexual in the first place. Or is Andrew Garfield bisexual, and he wants to bring that part of him into the character?

I kind of thought Bilbo should explore his African heritage in this Hobbit Trilogy. He doesn't have African heritage in the books, but I always thought it would be cool if he had a distant relative that fought for Shaka Zulu.

I was also disappointed that Captain Kirk didn't turn out to be a hermaphrodite in the Star Trek reboot. I always thought that he would be so much more interesting if he had both sets of genitals instead of one lonely penis.

Making characters into something that they're not just for the sake of exploring some obscure identity is stupid, and quite frankly, kind of offensive. If Andrew Garfield wants to explore bisexuality as a superhero, then he can write a script about a bisexual hero, or maybe see if he can get a studio to sponsor one of the lesser known, LGBT characters that Marvel has created.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,851
Messages
3,300,884
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top